|
RTS experience entails BW experience. If I played BW I have RTS experience. If I ate a banana I ate a fruit. If I ate an apple I ate a fruit. If RTS experience matters then BW experience matters. But I admit, the part I quoted seems to have nothing to do with that. My bad. But it seems to be dumb in a whole new way. If I were good in RTS, it does not mean I am good in RTS. Well, of course. But generally if I were good in RTS (within a reasonable period of time), I am still good in RTS.
There is direct correlation. There is not perfect correlation. Once again you don't understand the terms you use. Also you confuse causality with correlation. How many times do I have to point these things out before you bother learning what they mean and how they are used?
A.) I don’t think you understand what correlation means… Correlation is the existence of multiple possible variables during a single event that consistently repeats during the repetition of said event. If said variables do not repeat consistently then there is no correlation and hence there is no argument that can actually be started.
In the argument that talks about BW experience being the relevant factor and not simply “overall RTS experience” being a factor, only one of those two statements have evidence supporting it.
BW success has not translated into a similar level of success in SC2. People who were A class in BW are beaten by people were B class in BW. Former MSL champs can be bested by iCCup ladder players. MVP keeps losing to MMA. MMA keeps losing to Polt (assuming of course that BW > WC3 which I don’t believe either), etc… There is nothing in the data that suggests that we should look at any connection between how good you are in BW and how good you are in SC2.
There is, however, lots of evidence that people who played RTS games in general fared more than people who didn’t.
Former BW players of various ranges have been able to reach the GSL finals. Ladder players, A teamers, 2v2ers, B teamers, etc… Also a WC3 player has won a GSL. Not only that, but WC3 players have won a lot of tournaments outside of Korea and for time Huk was the best foreigner in the world coming neither from BW nor WC3. What we’re finding in the data is that it’s not very important how well you played RTS games before, just so long as you played a lot before.
In neither of these cases is there any proof of causation. There are simply the trends of the data available. If you want to argue about anything, stick with what the data presents. You can make an argument that it’s possible that past RTS experience “in general” helps with your success in SC2—because that is what is present in the data. But you can’t say that past RTS experience is the reason *why* a player is good in SC2. The data doesn’t show proof of that.
So you tried to show that the argument brought up by BW supporters is false by bringing it up. But it is not a counter-example to anything said by the BW supporters. It is therefore a strawman.
Wait… let me get this straight. BW supporters brought it up. SC2 supporters reveal a flaw in the argument. BW supporters get to call straw man?
Let’s put these statements side by side.
SC2 is a farce because Flash beats most all SC2 players.
BW is a farce because Flash beats most all BW players.
Do they both sound stupid? I think they do—hence why I pointed out the flaw in the argument. BW supporters can’t bring up the phrase and get to call out SC2 supporters on Strawman just because SC2 supporters show how silly the argument is.
Yet again, you don't understand what correlation and perfect correlation are. The hard data shows that if you did well in BW, you also do well in SC2. There is correlation. You'd look a lot less stupid if you even bothered to google what these words mean. But since you obviously won't, let me try to teach you. Not everyone dies of a gunshot wound. There is therefore no correlation between dying and gunshot wounds. That is your logic. But what it actually means is that there is no perfect correlation. The correlation is very much there.
Um… Actually, what I’m saying is that everyone dies from extreme trauma to vital organs—gunshot wounds being a possible source, but not the only source.
Observation.
Not everyone dies from gunshot wounds.
Not every former BW pro translates his success in BW to mirror his success in SC2.
Conclusion
Gunshot wounds have the ability to lead to death—but is not what causes death.
Playing RTS games in the past helps you not suck in SC2 although it doesn’t mean you’ll be awesome and amazing—BW is an RTS and hence qualifies in not making you suck at SC2.
I have no idea what that Europe example is supposed to show. Yes, top players in Europe from those games are also top players in Europe in SC2. So, yet again, there is correlation between success in previous RTS games and success in SC2. What is your point?
That being a BW programmer doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll be a better SC2 player than a random ladder player like Leenock/Huk? That SC2 is not a farce because it doesn’t seem to matter “How well” the players did in a past RTS game and simply only matters that they have some experience of playing a videogame of some kind. That the OP’s argument of the current crop of players being bad BW players and hence assuming that the current “good” BW players would roflstomp them in SC2 has no bearing since it doesn’t seem to matter *how good* you were in BW—just that you played some RTS of some kind.
Finally you say something that is not utterly stupid! Good job! But. The correlation is very much consistent. Top players from BW are already dominating SC2. If you were top 1% in BW, chances are high that you are also top 1% in SC2. If you were top 200 in BW, chances are high that you are also top 200 in SC2. Yes, it is true that you might be worse but chances are that you are at least equal. The part of the chances which is very relevant part you, of course, left out. Nice.
Except for the part that the data suggests that you’re wrong?
Although, I don’t know if you mean this, but-
1% of 100 is 1
1% of 200 is 2
1% of 300 is 3
So if you believe that only the top 1% of BW players in can best the top 1% of SC2—then you’re suggesting that only Flash and a few others have a chance against top level SC2 pros. Which goes against the entire point of the article’s argument about SC2 being a farce if it requires only the top high end pro players (that even top BW players can’t beat consistently) to beat the top SC2 players. By then you can say that BW is at least as good as SC2—but not better. I assume of course that you don’t mean this because I feel that it is your imperative to prove me wrong and to not agree with me.
What you mean to say is that the ranking you have in BW will translate to your ranking in SC2. The top 1% will be the top 1% and the top 200 will be the top 200. I mean, except for the tiny fact that the current data contradicts this in the lower leagues, the mid leagues and top S class leagues—then yeah, I see where you’re coming from.
BW pros would get crushed. That's why they haven't switched over. The ones that have aren't doing so well either.
There is no evidence for this either. Hyun only doing slightly better than a random foreigner does not mean that BW pros suck at SC2 anymore than MVP winning GSL titles means that BW Pros will roflstomp everyone.
|
On February 20 2012 13:40 GolemMadness wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 13:07 dsousa wrote:On February 20 2012 12:34 1Eris1 wrote:
Oh man, this thread is so pitiful. Can't believe you guys are still arguing about it.
Obviously SC2 takes a lot less mechanical skill than BW, and since we haven't really seen this "extra strategic skill" developed yet, it's no wonder that the top player manages to change every month.
I actually think I've come to disagree with this thread's premise. The relationship right now between the two games is like that of Baseball and Teeball. The fact that SC2 requires less mechanics to do more actions, makes the game strategically more complicated. There are more strategic options, because you are less restricted by mechanics. This is probably why ForGG said SC2 is harder. Yeah, like that tic-tac-toe game. All you need to be able to do is draw circles and exes, so the strategy element is INSANE!
Actually it's more like the difference between a top level quarterback and a chess grandmaster. Both have to "care" about strategies but the quarterback has to focus on execution and perfect timings. The less mechanically straining the competition the more "mental" and "analytical" the game becomes. Emphasis begins to be diverted towards "reading" the opponent and having an awareness of tactical trends both on a zeitgeist level and on a personal level. You can't simply 14CC in all matchups and shove your strategy down the opponent's throats.
EDIT::
And please for the love of god don't attack/look down on top level quarterbacks--they are not dumb brutes and deserve your respect and attention. Getting touchdowns might not seem as "strategic" as getting a checkmate--but it is very difficult and the best in the business are very smart and very good at what they do.
|
On February 20 2012 12:35 Squeegy wrote:Thank you, this is a great example! Nada played, I believe, his first games of SC2 that day and TLO was quite big back then. Nada still took a game off of him. I wonder who else than a BW pro could've done the same thing? And of course here we must remember that even Intrigue talked of transition time and not of instant domination.
They played on horrible maps though. Stepps of War comes to my mind. The game has come a long way since then, especially and most importantly due to how map pool has improved.
|
|
|
On February 20 2012 16:21 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 13:40 GolemMadness wrote:On February 20 2012 13:07 dsousa wrote:On February 20 2012 12:34 1Eris1 wrote:
Oh man, this thread is so pitiful. Can't believe you guys are still arguing about it.
Obviously SC2 takes a lot less mechanical skill than BW, and since we haven't really seen this "extra strategic skill" developed yet, it's no wonder that the top player manages to change every month.
I actually think I've come to disagree with this thread's premise. The relationship right now between the two games is like that of Baseball and Teeball. The fact that SC2 requires less mechanics to do more actions, makes the game strategically more complicated. There are more strategic options, because you are less restricted by mechanics. This is probably why ForGG said SC2 is harder. Yeah, like that tic-tac-toe game. All you need to be able to do is draw circles and exes, so the strategy element is INSANE! Actually it's more like the difference between a top level quarterback and a chess grandmaster. Both have to "care" about strategies but the quarterback has to focus on execution and perfect timings. The less mechanically straining the competition the more "mental" and "analytical" the game becomes. Emphasis begins to be diverted towards "reading" the opponent and having an awareness of tactical trends both on a zeitgeist level and on a personal level. You can't simply 14CC in all matchups and shove your strategy down the opponent's throats. EDIT:: And please for the love of god don't attack/look down on top level quarterbacks--they are not dumb brutes and deserve your respect and attention. Getting touchdowns might not seem as "strategic" as getting a checkmate--but it is very difficult and the best in the business are very smart and very good at what they do.
The amount of plays a quarterback needs to know and execute is pretty daunting, like knowing many build orders. And it's physically demanding and requires snap decisions, I think that's a pretty good comparison to RTS games.
|
On February 20 2012 16:16 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +RTS experience entails BW experience. If I played BW I have RTS experience. If I ate a banana I ate a fruit. If I ate an apple I ate a fruit. If RTS experience matters then BW experience matters. But I admit, the part I quoted seems to have nothing to do with that. My bad. But it seems to be dumb in a whole new way. If I were good in RTS, it does not mean I am good in RTS. Well, of course. But generally if I were good in RTS (within a reasonable period of time), I am still good in RTS.
There is direct correlation. There is not perfect correlation. Once again you don't understand the terms you use. Also you confuse causality with correlation. How many times do I have to point these things out before you bother learning what they mean and how they are used? A.) I don’t think you understand what correlation means… Correlation is the existence of multiple possible variables during a single event that consistently repeats during the repetition of said event. If said variables do not repeat consistently then there is no correlation and hence there is no argument that can actually be started. In the argument that talks about BW experience being the relevant factor and not simply “overall RTS experience” being a factor, only one of those two statements have evidence supporting it. BW success has not translated into a similar level of success in SC2. People who were A class in BW are beaten by people were B class in BW. Former MSL champs can be bested by iCCup ladder players. MVP keeps losing to MMA. MMA keeps losing to Polt (assuming of course that BW > WC3 which I don’t believe either), etc… There is nothing in the data that suggests that we should look at any connection between how good you are in BW and how good you are in SC2. There is, however, lots of evidence that people who played RTS games in general fared more than people who didn’t. Former BW players of various ranges have been able to reach the GSL finals. Ladder players, A teamers, 2v2ers, B teamers, etc… Also a WC3 player has won a GSL. Not only that, but WC3 players have won a lot of tournaments outside of Korea and for time Huk was the best foreigner in the world coming neither from BW nor WC3. What we’re finding in the data is that it’s not very important how well you played RTS games before, just so long as you played a lot before. In neither of these cases is there any proof of causation. There are simply the trends of the data available. If you want to argue about anything, stick with what the data presents. You can make an argument that it’s possible that past RTS experience “in general” helps with your success in SC2—because that is what is present in the data. But you can’t say that past RTS experience is the reason *why* a player is good in SC2. The data doesn’t show proof of that. Show nested quote +So you tried to show that the argument brought up by BW supporters is false by bringing it up. But it is not a counter-example to anything said by the BW supporters. It is therefore a strawman. Wait… let me get this straight. BW supporters brought it up. SC2 supporters reveal a flaw in the argument. BW supporters get to call straw man? Let’s put these statements side by side. SC2 is a farce because Flash beats most all SC2 players. BW is a farce because Flash beats most all BW players. Do they both sound stupid? I think they do—hence why I pointed out the flaw in the argument. BW supporters can’t bring up the phrase and get to call out SC2 supporters on Strawman just because SC2 supporters show how silly the argument is. Show nested quote +Yet again, you don't understand what correlation and perfect correlation are. The hard data shows that if you did well in BW, you also do well in SC2. There is correlation. You'd look a lot less stupid if you even bothered to google what these words mean. But since you obviously won't, let me try to teach you. Not everyone dies of a gunshot wound. There is therefore no correlation between dying and gunshot wounds. That is your logic. But what it actually means is that there is no perfect correlation. The correlation is very much there. Um… Actually, what I’m saying is that everyone dies from extreme trauma to vital organs—gunshot wounds being a possible source, but not the only source. Observation. Not everyone dies from gunshot wounds. Not every former BW pro translates his success in BW to mirror his success in SC2. Conclusion Gunshot wounds have the ability to lead to death—but is not what causes death. Playing RTS games in the past helps you not suck in SC2 although it doesn’t mean you’ll be awesome and amazing—BW is an RTS and hence qualifies in not making you suck at SC2. Show nested quote +I have no idea what that Europe example is supposed to show. Yes, top players in Europe from those games are also top players in Europe in SC2. So, yet again, there is correlation between success in previous RTS games and success in SC2. What is your point? That being a BW programmer doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll be a better SC2 player than a random ladder player like Leenock/Huk? That SC2 is not a farce because it doesn’t seem to matter “How well” the players did in a past RTS game and simply only matters that they have some experience of playing a videogame of some kind. That the OP’s argument of the current crop of players being bad BW players and hence assuming that the current “good” BW players would roflstomp them in SC2 has no bearing since it doesn’t seem to matter *how good* you were in BW—just that you played some RTS of some kind. Show nested quote +Finally you say something that is not utterly stupid! Good job! But. The correlation is very much consistent. Top players from BW are already dominating SC2. If you were top 1% in BW, chances are high that you are also top 1% in SC2. If you were top 200 in BW, chances are high that you are also top 200 in SC2. Yes, it is true that you might be worse but chances are that you are at least equal. The part of the chances which is very relevant part you, of course, left out. Nice. Except for the part that the data suggests that you’re wrong? Although, I don’t know if you mean this, but- 1% of 100 is 1 1% of 200 is 2 1% of 300 is 3 So if you believe that only the top 1% of BW players in can best the top 1% of SC2—then you’re suggesting that only Flash and a few others have a chance against top level SC2 pros. Which goes against the entire point of the article’s argument about SC2 being a farce if it requires only the top high end pro players (that even top BW players can’t beat consistently) to beat the top SC2 players. By then you can say that BW is at least as good as SC2—but not better. I assume of course that you don’t mean this because I feel that it is your imperative to prove me wrong and to not agree with me. What you mean to say is that the ranking you have in BW will translate to your ranking in SC2. The top 1% will be the top 1% and the top 200 will be the top 200. I mean, except for the tiny fact that the current data contradicts this in the lower leagues, the mid leagues and top S class leagues—then yeah, I see where you’re coming from. Show nested quote +BW pros would get crushed. That's why they haven't switched over. The ones that have aren't doing so well either. There is no evidence for this either. Hyun only doing slightly better than a random foreigner does not mean that BW pros suck at SC2 anymore than MVP winning GSL titles means that BW Pros will roflstomp everyone.
The article only talks about BW experience because it is about BW players. Because Intrigue thinks BW players are better. It is not inconsistent with overall RTS background helping too.
There may not be any correlation if you look at individual events like MMA losing to Polt. But that is not how you look for correlation. Which, I repeat, yet again shows that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
It doesn't matter how well you did in RTS games before? How come almost every high level player played some RTS before at high level too? If it doesn't matter why are not the players who were bad doing well? Because you see, if it does not matter, then we should see much more variety at the top. But we don't, so you are wrong.
I don't think anything I can say will make you realize that it is plain as a day that you don't have any idea about what you are talking about. I guess all I can hope for is that someone actually builds a graph that shows you the correlation.
SC2 is a farce because Flash beats everyone. Who exactly said that? Hmm?
So gunshot wounds don't cause deaths. Okay. But what does that have to do with what I said? I was talking about correlation. Yet again a strawman.
I addressed that point already. How many of the top 200 do you think were not top 200 in some previous game?
No, I don't mean that and it is beyond me how could you take it to mean that. They were two separate examples top 200 and top 1%. And you are correct, it is imperative that I don't agree with you but disagree with you. As you may have noticed I have not exactly tried to argue the article itself with you but that you don't know what you are talking about. You see, you say there is no correlation. So you see even if I say "as good" I am still disagreeing with you. Which I think you realized in the later part.
And when it comes to Nada at IEM, I said "I believe" precisely because I wasn't sure. The match between Nada and TLO was showmatch. Not an actual match. At the most he had only played a tiny bit. He was still in WeMadeFox then if memory serves.
|
If I recall there was a call from KESPA telling Nada to stop playing SC2. Nada was in Germany to promote some cellphone game or something and naturally they decided to organize a showmatch between him and the most popular German player of the moment. Nada said he had played the game a little bit, and the games were two quick wins by TLO and a long macro game on Steppes of War. Nada pretty much used Brood War build orders throughout the series, I can recall the casters being super impressed by his tank positioning and marine micro - things that are taken for granted nowadays, but weren't very widespread during the beta.
In any case, this showmatch proved nothing about BW vs SC2.
|
On February 20 2012 23:23 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 16:16 lorkac wrote:RTS experience entails BW experience. If I played BW I have RTS experience. If I ate a banana I ate a fruit. If I ate an apple I ate a fruit. If RTS experience matters then BW experience matters. But I admit, the part I quoted seems to have nothing to do with that. My bad. But it seems to be dumb in a whole new way. If I were good in RTS, it does not mean I am good in RTS. Well, of course. But generally if I were good in RTS (within a reasonable period of time), I am still good in RTS.
There is direct correlation. There is not perfect correlation. Once again you don't understand the terms you use. Also you confuse causality with correlation. How many times do I have to point these things out before you bother learning what they mean and how they are used? A.) I don’t think you understand what correlation means… Correlation is the existence of multiple possible variables during a single event that consistently repeats during the repetition of said event. If said variables do not repeat consistently then there is no correlation and hence there is no argument that can actually be started. In the argument that talks about BW experience being the relevant factor and not simply “overall RTS experience” being a factor, only one of those two statements have evidence supporting it. BW success has not translated into a similar level of success in SC2. People who were A class in BW are beaten by people were B class in BW. Former MSL champs can be bested by iCCup ladder players. MVP keeps losing to MMA. MMA keeps losing to Polt (assuming of course that BW > WC3 which I don’t believe either), etc… There is nothing in the data that suggests that we should look at any connection between how good you are in BW and how good you are in SC2. There is, however, lots of evidence that people who played RTS games in general fared more than people who didn’t. Former BW players of various ranges have been able to reach the GSL finals. Ladder players, A teamers, 2v2ers, B teamers, etc… Also a WC3 player has won a GSL. Not only that, but WC3 players have won a lot of tournaments outside of Korea and for time Huk was the best foreigner in the world coming neither from BW nor WC3. What we’re finding in the data is that it’s not very important how well you played RTS games before, just so long as you played a lot before. In neither of these cases is there any proof of causation. There are simply the trends of the data available. If you want to argue about anything, stick with what the data presents. You can make an argument that it’s possible that past RTS experience “in general” helps with your success in SC2—because that is what is present in the data. But you can’t say that past RTS experience is the reason *why* a player is good in SC2. The data doesn’t show proof of that. So you tried to show that the argument brought up by BW supporters is false by bringing it up. But it is not a counter-example to anything said by the BW supporters. It is therefore a strawman. Wait… let me get this straight. BW supporters brought it up. SC2 supporters reveal a flaw in the argument. BW supporters get to call straw man? Let’s put these statements side by side. SC2 is a farce because Flash beats most all SC2 players. BW is a farce because Flash beats most all BW players. Do they both sound stupid? I think they do—hence why I pointed out the flaw in the argument. BW supporters can’t bring up the phrase and get to call out SC2 supporters on Strawman just because SC2 supporters show how silly the argument is. Yet again, you don't understand what correlation and perfect correlation are. The hard data shows that if you did well in BW, you also do well in SC2. There is correlation. You'd look a lot less stupid if you even bothered to google what these words mean. But since you obviously won't, let me try to teach you. Not everyone dies of a gunshot wound. There is therefore no correlation between dying and gunshot wounds. That is your logic. But what it actually means is that there is no perfect correlation. The correlation is very much there. Um… Actually, what I’m saying is that everyone dies from extreme trauma to vital organs—gunshot wounds being a possible source, but not the only source. Observation. Not everyone dies from gunshot wounds. Not every former BW pro translates his success in BW to mirror his success in SC2. Conclusion Gunshot wounds have the ability to lead to death—but is not what causes death. Playing RTS games in the past helps you not suck in SC2 although it doesn’t mean you’ll be awesome and amazing—BW is an RTS and hence qualifies in not making you suck at SC2. I have no idea what that Europe example is supposed to show. Yes, top players in Europe from those games are also top players in Europe in SC2. So, yet again, there is correlation between success in previous RTS games and success in SC2. What is your point? That being a BW programmer doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll be a better SC2 player than a random ladder player like Leenock/Huk? That SC2 is not a farce because it doesn’t seem to matter “How well” the players did in a past RTS game and simply only matters that they have some experience of playing a videogame of some kind. That the OP’s argument of the current crop of players being bad BW players and hence assuming that the current “good” BW players would roflstomp them in SC2 has no bearing since it doesn’t seem to matter *how good* you were in BW—just that you played some RTS of some kind. Finally you say something that is not utterly stupid! Good job! But. The correlation is very much consistent. Top players from BW are already dominating SC2. If you were top 1% in BW, chances are high that you are also top 1% in SC2. If you were top 200 in BW, chances are high that you are also top 200 in SC2. Yes, it is true that you might be worse but chances are that you are at least equal. The part of the chances which is very relevant part you, of course, left out. Nice. Except for the part that the data suggests that you’re wrong? Although, I don’t know if you mean this, but- 1% of 100 is 1 1% of 200 is 2 1% of 300 is 3 So if you believe that only the top 1% of BW players in can best the top 1% of SC2—then you’re suggesting that only Flash and a few others have a chance against top level SC2 pros. Which goes against the entire point of the article’s argument about SC2 being a farce if it requires only the top high end pro players (that even top BW players can’t beat consistently) to beat the top SC2 players. By then you can say that BW is at least as good as SC2—but not better. I assume of course that you don’t mean this because I feel that it is your imperative to prove me wrong and to not agree with me. What you mean to say is that the ranking you have in BW will translate to your ranking in SC2. The top 1% will be the top 1% and the top 200 will be the top 200. I mean, except for the tiny fact that the current data contradicts this in the lower leagues, the mid leagues and top S class leagues—then yeah, I see where you’re coming from. BW pros would get crushed. That's why they haven't switched over. The ones that have aren't doing so well either. There is no evidence for this either. Hyun only doing slightly better than a random foreigner does not mean that BW pros suck at SC2 anymore than MVP winning GSL titles means that BW Pros will roflstomp everyone. The article only talks about BW experience because it is about BW players. Because Intrigue thinks BW players are better. It is not inconsistent with overall RTS background helping too. There may not be any correlation if you look at individual events like MMA losing to Polt. But that is not how you look for correlation. Which, I repeat, yet again shows that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. It doesn't matter how well you did in RTS games before? How come almost every high level player played some RTS before at high level too? If it doesn't matter why are not the players who were bad doing well? Because you see, if it does not matter, then we should see much more variety at the top. But we don't, so you are wrong. I don't think anything I can say will make you realize that it is plain as a day that you don't have any idea about what you are talking about. I guess all I can hope for is that someone actually builds a graph that shows you the correlation. SC2 is a farce because Flash beats everyone. Who exactly said that? Hmm? So gunshot wounds don't cause deaths. Okay. But what does that have to do with what I said? I was talking about correlation. Yet again a strawman. I addressed that point already. How many of the top 200 do you think were not top 200 in some previous game? No, I don't mean that and it is beyond me how could you take it to mean that. They were two separate examples top 200 and top 1%. And you are correct, it is imperative that I don't agree with you but disagree with you. As you may have noticed I have not exactly tried to argue the article itself with you but that you don't know what you are talking about. You see, you say there is no correlation. So you see even if I say "as good" I am still disagreeing with you. Which I think you realized in the later part. And when it comes to Nada at IEM, I said "I believe" precisely because I wasn't sure. The match between Nada and TLO was showmatch. Not an actual match. At the most he had only played a tiny bit. He was still in WeMadeFox then if memory serves.
The article talks only about BW experience because the assumption is that BW is better than all other games. The data shows that that BW experience specifically is not important—just that general RTS experience is important. You have never addressed this because you have nothing to back up your statements.
I’m not saying to look at individual events and count those events as correlation. I’m saying to look at the overall results and to look at trends. According to results, there is no correlation between being better at BW than another player leading to more wins. One can point at specific matches to ensure that I am not simply making blanket statements. It is called looking at evidence—something you seem to be very against. Once again, faith based argumentation is not allowed on TL, take your religion talk elsewhere, what we want is facts and data.
I did say that the data cares about general RTS experience—it simply doesn’t care how *well* you played in BW (Or even WC3 for that matter—Naniwa and Thorzain are much bigger successes than Grubby). But even then, the best you can say is that there is a correlation—to determine causation will require deeper research. Build order trends, practice sessions, overall health, hand speed, hand eye coordination, etc… All that the data shows is a trend—it doesn’t tell us the answer immediately. This is the reason why Leenock can be a top level threat while Hyun can’t get past round 1 code A while at the same time MVP can show more consistency than MC. If you simply looked at win rate data—it seems almost random who can win and so people are willing to say that SC2 is an unstable game. The truth is that a lot of variables leads up to a victory in an RTS game from sleep schedules, eating habits, practice routines, play habits, etc… that simply looking at one set of data does not determine conclusions.
And if you don’t believe that people brought up Flash being able to beat everyone in SC2 despite us not having any data on how well Flash plays SC2—then you obviously haven’t read the thread.
Wait—so you bring up gunshot wounds in conjunction with statistical correlation—I showed you how your understanding of my statements was wrong by showing you my argument in the framework of *your* analogy, and I’m the strawman? If you don’t like analogies/topics being used in an argument—stop bringing them up.
You attempt to state that my use of analogies was akin to the analogy of gunshot wounds and death.
I said no, and showed you a side by side example of what my argument looks like if you were to actually use the analogy of gunshot wounds and death. Because, you know, you seemed to want to use that analogy to describe my argument. Upon showing you how you were wrong in your argument—you call out strawman… again? Is this what you like throwing out at people instead of using evidence? I think I’m the second person you accuse of strawman for using terms/analogies/topics that are already part of the discourse. I don’t think you know what a strawman is…
Top 200 in a previous game? When you say “previous game” do you actually mean “any game” or do you mean “BW?”
If you mean “any game” then you’re agreeing with me that BW experience doesn’t really count, what counts is that you’ve played some RTS game before.
If you mean “Top 200 BW” then you seem to not be able to understand what the argument of this thread is. Here is the argument of this thread. SC2 is a farce because the players who play in it were “bad” BW players, and there are better BW players playing currently. But what the data shows is that one’s success rate in BW does not translate to one’s success rate in SC2. Being really really good in BW did not automatically mean you would beat someone who was really really bad in BW. Hence why A-Team players can lose to B team players and iCCup players can take wins off of pro players. The reason this thread exists is because it is accepted that the top players have RTS experience. If you’re really devolving your argument away from that then I don’t think you actually know what you’re talking about.
Oh wait…
As you may have noticed I have not exactly tried to argue the article itself with you but that you don't know what you are talking about.
So does this mean you’re just trolling me?
How about this—when you have evidence to back your claims come back and post on this thread; because if you’re simply here to not talk about the topic (as you have just said)—then you’re just trolling.
|
If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top? Intrigue think BW experience is important because BW reached a higher level than any other game. Well, granted, he also thinks that SC2 is more similar to BW and that therefore BW experience will carry over better.
That is what you said. Perhaps you didn't mean it. In either case, you can repeat it ad infinitum but that does not make it true.
Oh, so now you agree there is correlation. Why have I had to repeat this point over and over again. I was expecting something more climatic though like "forgive me, I was wrong, there is indeed correlation".
The Flash issue, you fail to, I don't know, the millionth time to get the point. Yes, people have said Flash can beat anyone in SC2 rather quickly. No, people have not said competition in BW was a farce prior Flash. These two things do not mean the same thing. And nobody has claimed the latter.
No, what you did was switch the discussion to causality when we had been talking about the existence of correlation. Nor did I try to show you anything about your analogies. I tried to show you that there is correlation between gunshot wounds and deaths despite it not being perfect correlation. Just like there is correlation between BW results and SC2 results, despite it not being perfect correlation. Clearly you have trouble following what I am saying. Also I guarantee you I know what a strawman is.
Any game is fine. But the fact that you had to ask that question shows that you don't understand what I am talking about. I am talking about well you did in a previous game mattering. Something that you said was not the case. But also about what you said: and this may surprise you: Flash loses games against worse players too. Being better in BW does not guarantee you automatic wins in BW either! Can you believe that? It is very surprising, isn't it?
No, it means that it is pointless to argue the point itself with you when you don't know how to argue. So I have been trying to point out (for example) that you don't know what correlation means as well as that your posts are riddled with fallacies. Now, if you chose to accept and fix these issues then we could talk about the original argument. You should be humble and learn from those who try to teach you. I'm not even asking you to pay tuition fees.
|
On February 21 2012 01:48 Squeegy wrote:
If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top? Intrigue think BW experience is important because BW reached a higher level than any other game. Well, granted, he also thinks that SC2 is more similar to BW and that therefore BW experience will carry over better.
That is what you said. Perhaps you didn't mean it. In either case, you can repeat it ad infinitum but that does not make it true.
Oh, so now you agree there is correlation. Why have I had to repeat this point over and over again. I was expecting something more climatic though like "forgive me, I was wrong, there is indeed correlation".
The Flash issue, you fail to, I don't know, the millionth time to get the point. Yes, people have said Flash can beat anyone in SC2 rather quickly. No, people have not said competition in BW was a farce prior Flash. These two things do not mean the same thing. And nobody has claimed the latter.
No, what you did was switch the discussion to causality when we had been talking about the existence of correlation. Nor did I try to show you anything about your analogies. I tried to show you that there is correlation between gunshot wounds and deaths despite it not being perfect correlation. Just like there is correlation between BW results and SC2 results, despite it not being perfect correlation. Clearly you have trouble following what I am saying. Also I guarantee you I know what a strawman is.
Any game is fine. But the fact that you had to ask that question shows that you don't understand what I am talking about. I am talking about well you did in a previous game mattering. Something that you said was not the case. But also about what you said: and this may surprise you: Flash loses games against worse players too. Being better in BW does not guarantee you automatic wins in BW either! Can you believe that? It is very surprising, isn't it?
No, it means that it is pointless to argue the point itself with you when you don't know how to argue. So I have been trying to point out (for example) that you don't know what correlation means as well as that your posts are riddled with fallacies. Now, if you chose to accept and fix these issues then we could talk about the original argument. You should be humble and learn from those who try to teach you. I'm not even asking you to pay tuition fees.
Okay... let's try this again. Because you don't seem to be listening to yourself.
If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top? Intrigue think BW experience is important because BW reached a higher level than any other game. Well, granted, he also thinks that SC2 is more similar to BW and that therefore BW experience will carry over better.
Evidence shows that the "top BW players" who switched over are not automatically on top of SC2. They are spread around from Code B to through Code S much like non-BW players are spread around from Code B through Code S. But don't trust me on that--trust the results. I don't need to make blanket statements like "If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top?" because, well, they aren't. Nestea is doing better than Ganzi, Leenock is doing better than ForGG, MMA is beating MVP, etc... The results so far reveal that you're wrong. You saying that you're not does not change the results.
Oh, so now you agree there is correlation. Why have I had to repeat this point over and over again. I was expecting something more climatic though like "forgive me, I was wrong, there is indeed correlation".
Yes... the corrolelation of "people who decided to go pro at videogames played some kind of videogame before hand..."
Hmm... do you really want to go down this road? You start by saying that the correlation of BW experience and SC2 success is present--I say it doesn't. I then say that the only correlation is that professional video game players more often than not played video games before they turned pro... Which, again, doesn't prove anything nor does it reveal anything. When we look at the data, it is shown that how well you do in BW does not translate to how well you do in SC2. Which again, shows that there is no correlation between BW success and SC2 success. So instead of sticking to the argument you are now going with the "they played video games before turning pro in SC2" argument? Really?
I mean really?
The Flash issue, you fail to, I don't know, the millionth time to get the point. Yes, people have said Flash can beat anyone in SC2 rather quickly. No, people have not said competition in BW was a farce prior Flash. These two things do not mean the same thing. And nobody has claimed the latter.
So you do agree that it was already part of the discussion--so it was not brought up randomly as a strawman by SC2 supporters.
You also agree that people have brought up the "Flash beats player X at game Y so game Y is a farce argument." with Y normally being SC2.
But if someone suggests that the argument is faulty because that would mean BW is a farce if you put BW in Y--then you call that a strawman?
And at the same time--you fail to see that there is nothing different in changing the Y of that argument between SC2 and BW except for the part that it makes people who believe Flash automatically will rule SC2 sound silly?
What exactly are you trying to get at? Please elaborate.
No, what you did was switch the discussion to causality when we had been talking about the existence of correlation. Nor did I try to show you anything about your analogies. I tried to show you that there is correlation between gunshot wounds and deaths despite it not being perfect correlation. Just like there is correlation between BW results and SC2 results, despite it not being perfect correlation. Clearly you have trouble following what I am saying. Also I guarantee you I know what a strawman is.
Actually, what you showed me was that you didn't know anything about correlations.
If you open the line of thought with "gunshot wounds leads to death" and then realize "Oh, not all the time" then the conclusion is not "gunshot wounds kind of correlates to death" but instead it should be "gunshot wounds *can* lead to something that causes death--I wonder what that "thing" is that can correlate with death"
Instead you'd rather not use logic and use the "oh well close enough I guess" mentality when it comes to analysis. If the two things you are attempting to correlate are inconsistent--then they're not really correlating... by definition. What it reveals however is that you have a willingness both academically and personally to gloss over data so long as it fits what your argument is saying instead of actually attempting to reach a truth hinged in reality.
Just to make sure it is clear to you--if the data is inconsistent to your hypothesis, then you should be willing to change your hypothesis.
Any game is fine. But the fact that you had to ask that question shows that you don't understand what I am talking about. I am talking about well you did in a previous game mattering. Something that you said was not the case.
The data simply shows that people played games before they switched to SC2. How "well you did in a previous game" has not really mattered all that much. This is why Polt and Naniwa have been posting better results than Grubby. This is also the reason why Ganzi is never really a top contender--but DRG is. How "well you did in a previous game" is mattering much less than "so long as you played a video game at some point before you switched" does. According to the results made by the players themselves.
Simply saying something does not make it true--you need to back up what you say with data.
But also about what you said: and this may surprise you: Flash loses games against worse players too. Being better in BW does not guarantee you automatic wins in BW either! Can you believe that? It is very surprising, isn't it?
This is actually hilarious to read. The supporters of SC2 have always held their ground that just because you're good at one game, it doesn't mean you'll be good at another. The reason SC2 players believe this, is because we believe that everyone has a chance to become the best no matter their background. That is why a former iCCup player is able to take games off of former A-Teamers and B-Teamers. That is why Hyun can't make it to code A. That is why SC2 supporters are arguing against the article. Because we believe that simply because someone is ranked 1 somewhere, that that person doesn't automatically win all his games. You know, much like Flash losing games in BW. Just because he's a high ranked BW player doesn't automatically mean he'll win a game because his ranking is not *why* he wins games and is actually irrelevant to his actual gameplay. He wins games because of many other factors none of which is related to his ranking. It's actually really funny that you're actually beginning to have to make the same arguments as SC2 supporters because (gasp) those arguments are the ones supported by data.
No, it means that it is pointless to argue the point itself with you when you don't know how to argue. So I have been trying to point out (for example) that you don't know what correlation means as well as that your posts are riddled with fallacies. Now, if you chose to accept and fix these issues then we could talk about the original argument. You should be humble and learn from those who try to teach you. I'm not even asking you to pay tuition fees.
Except for the part where only one of us is sticking to data and actually seems to know what correlation means...
Except for the part where only one of us has actually been staying on topic...
Except for the part where only one of us is using theorycrafted arguments that goes against the evidence available...
You literally have no idea what you're saying and for the second time in a row you have admitted that you're not really trying to stay on topic with the thread. Please, just stop.
The basis of your argument is that I need to first accept all your terms as true before you're willing to argue--and my rebuttals of your terms being contradictory to the data present are being ignored. Please, stop trolling. Unless you're willing to stay on topic, please stop trolling.
|
""If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top?" because, well, they aren't. Nestea is doing better than Ganzi, Leenock is doing better than ForGG, MMA is beating MVP, etc... The results so far reveal that you're wrong. You saying that you're not does not change the results."
BW players aren't at the top because BW players lost to other BW players at the top? Wat?
Yes, Flash can beat anyone in SC2 was part of the discussion. But no, I do not agree with the second statement. They do not mean the same thing. Why is it that so hard to understand?
"If you open the line of thought with "gunshot wounds leads to death" and then realize "Oh, not all the time" then the conclusion is not "gunshot wounds kind of correlates to death" but instead it should be "gunshot wounds *can* lead to something that causes death--I wonder what that "thing" is that can correlate with death""
Here, people, I show you a quote that proves my point. He does not understand what correlation means. Ignore for a moment that you may disagree with me overall but please, will someone tell this man that he does not know what the word 'correlation' means? He won't believe me when I say it, so maybe someone else can beat sense to him.
And now you curiously change from your previous claim of how well you did in your previous game "does not matter" to "does not matter all that much". So you in fact admit now that how well you did in the previous game matters?
"This is actually hilarious to read. The supporters of SC2 have always held their ground that just because you're good at one game, it doesn't mean you'll be good at another. The reason SC2 players believe this, is because we believe that everyone has a chance to become the best no matter their background. That is why a former iCCup player is able to take games off of former A-Teamers and B-Teamers. That is why Hyun can't make it to code A. That is why SC2 supporters are arguing against the article. Because we believe that simply because someone is ranked 1 somewhere, that that person doesn't automatically win all his games. You know, much like Flash losing games in BW. Just because he's a high ranked BW player doesn't automatically mean he'll win a game because his ranking is not *why* he wins games and is actually irrelevant to his actual gameplay. He wins games because of many other factors none of which is related to his ranking. It's actually really funny that you're actually beginning to have to make the same arguments as SC2 supporters because (gasp) those arguments are the ones supported by data."
Do you think BW players thought Flash was born playing BW? Nope. They too think that anyone can be the best. Nor do they think that Flash is so good because he is ranked somewhere. They think Flash is ranked somewhere because he is so good. Nor do they think he automatically wins his games. Do you know why that is? Because we have him lose. We know that his win% is around 70. He loses sometimes and we all knew that. But you seem to think that we didn't. Which scenario do you think is more likely (and I really hope you'll answer this) that you have misunderstood what people have been saying or that we really thought that Flash automatically wins? Hyun, by the way, made it to Code A. Why do you claim that he didn't?
|
On February 21 2012 02:49 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 01:48 Squeegy wrote:
If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top? Intrigue think BW experience is important because BW reached a higher level than any other game. Well, granted, he also thinks that SC2 is more similar to BW and that therefore BW experience will carry over better.
That is what you said. Perhaps you didn't mean it. In either case, you can repeat it ad infinitum but that does not make it true.
Oh, so now you agree there is correlation. Why have I had to repeat this point over and over again. I was expecting something more climatic though like "forgive me, I was wrong, there is indeed correlation".
The Flash issue, you fail to, I don't know, the millionth time to get the point. Yes, people have said Flash can beat anyone in SC2 rather quickly. No, people have not said competition in BW was a farce prior Flash. These two things do not mean the same thing. And nobody has claimed the latter.
No, what you did was switch the discussion to causality when we had been talking about the existence of correlation. Nor did I try to show you anything about your analogies. I tried to show you that there is correlation between gunshot wounds and deaths despite it not being perfect correlation. Just like there is correlation between BW results and SC2 results, despite it not being perfect correlation. Clearly you have trouble following what I am saying. Also I guarantee you I know what a strawman is.
Any game is fine. But the fact that you had to ask that question shows that you don't understand what I am talking about. I am talking about well you did in a previous game mattering. Something that you said was not the case. But also about what you said: and this may surprise you: Flash loses games against worse players too. Being better in BW does not guarantee you automatic wins in BW either! Can you believe that? It is very surprising, isn't it?
No, it means that it is pointless to argue the point itself with you when you don't know how to argue. So I have been trying to point out (for example) that you don't know what correlation means as well as that your posts are riddled with fallacies. Now, if you chose to accept and fix these issues then we could talk about the original argument. You should be humble and learn from those who try to teach you. I'm not even asking you to pay tuition fees. Okay... let's try this again. Because you don't seem to be listening to yourself. Show nested quote +If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top? Intrigue think BW experience is important because BW reached a higher level than any other game. Well, granted, he also thinks that SC2 is more similar to BW and that therefore BW experience will carry over better. Evidence shows that the "top BW players" who switched over are not automatically on top of SC2. They are spread around from Code B to through Code S much like non-BW players are spread around from Code B through Code S. But don't trust me on that--trust the results. I don't need to make blanket statements like "If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top?" because, well, they aren't. Nestea is doing better than Ganzi, Leenock is doing better than ForGG, MMA is beating MVP, etc... The results so far reveal that you're wrong. You saying that you're not does not change the results. Show nested quote +Oh, so now you agree there is correlation. Why have I had to repeat this point over and over again. I was expecting something more climatic though like "forgive me, I was wrong, there is indeed correlation". Yes... the corrolelation of "people who decided to go pro at videogames played some kind of videogame before hand..." Hmm... do you really want to go down this road? You start by saying that the correlation of BW experience and SC2 success is present--I say it doesn't. I then say that the only correlation is that professional video game players more often than not played video games before they turned pro... Which, again, doesn't prove anything nor does it reveal anything. When we look at the data, it is shown that how well you do in BW does not translate to how well you do in SC2. Which again, shows that there is no correlation between BW success and SC2 success. So instead of sticking to the argument you are now going with the "they played video games before turning pro in SC2" argument? Really? I mean really? Show nested quote +The Flash issue, you fail to, I don't know, the millionth time to get the point. Yes, people have said Flash can beat anyone in SC2 rather quickly. No, people have not said competition in BW was a farce prior Flash. These two things do not mean the same thing. And nobody has claimed the latter. So you do agree that it was already part of the discussion--so it was not brought up randomly as a strawman by SC2 supporters. You also agree that people have brought up the "Flash beats player X at game Y so game Y is a farce argument." with Y normally being SC2. But if someone suggests that the argument is faulty because that would mean BW is a farce if you put BW in Y--then you call that a strawman? And at the same time--you fail to see that there is nothing different in changing the Y of that argument between SC2 and BW except for the part that it makes people who believe Flash automatically will rule SC2 sound silly? What exactly are you trying to get at? Please elaborate. Show nested quote +No, what you did was switch the discussion to causality when we had been talking about the existence of correlation. Nor did I try to show you anything about your analogies. I tried to show you that there is correlation between gunshot wounds and deaths despite it not being perfect correlation. Just like there is correlation between BW results and SC2 results, despite it not being perfect correlation. Clearly you have trouble following what I am saying. Also I guarantee you I know what a strawman is. Actually, what you showed me was that you didn't know anything about correlations. If you open the line of thought with "gunshot wounds leads to death" and then realize "Oh, not all the time" then the conclusion is not "gunshot wounds kind of correlates to death" but instead it should be "gunshot wounds *can* lead to something that causes death--I wonder what that "thing" is that can correlate with death" Instead you'd rather not use logic and use the "oh well close enough I guess" mentality when it comes to analysis. If the two things you are attempting to correlate are inconsistent--then they're not really correlating... by definition. What it reveals however is that you have a willingness both academically and personally to gloss over data so long as it fits what your argument is saying instead of actually attempting to reach a truth hinged in reality. Just to make sure it is clear to you--if the data is inconsistent to your hypothesis, then you should be willing to change your hypothesis. Show nested quote +Any game is fine. But the fact that you had to ask that question shows that you don't understand what I am talking about. I am talking about well you did in a previous game mattering. Something that you said was not the case. The data simply shows that people played games before they switched to SC2. How "well you did in a previous game" has not really mattered all that much. This is why Polt and Naniwa have been posting better results than Grubby. This is also the reason why Ganzi is never really a top contender--but DRG is. How "well you did in a previous game" is mattering much less than "so long as you played a video game at some point before you switched" does. According to the results made by the players themselves. Simply saying something does not make it true--you need to back up what you say with data. Show nested quote +But also about what you said: and this may surprise you: Flash loses games against worse players too. Being better in BW does not guarantee you automatic wins in BW either! Can you believe that? It is very surprising, isn't it?
This is actually hilarious to read. The supporters of SC2 have always held their ground that just because you're good at one game, it doesn't mean you'll be good at another. The reason SC2 players believe this, is because we believe that everyone has a chance to become the best no matter their background. That is why a former iCCup player is able to take games off of former A-Teamers and B-Teamers. That is why Hyun can't make it to code A. That is why SC2 supporters are arguing against the article. Because we believe that simply because someone is ranked 1 somewhere, that that person doesn't automatically win all his games. You know, much like Flash losing games in BW. Just because he's a high ranked BW player doesn't automatically mean he'll win a game because his ranking is not *why* he wins games and is actually irrelevant to his actual gameplay. He wins games because of many other factors none of which is related to his ranking. It's actually really funny that you're actually beginning to have to make the same arguments as SC2 supporters because (gasp) those arguments are the ones supported by data. Show nested quote +No, it means that it is pointless to argue the point itself with you when you don't know how to argue. So I have been trying to point out (for example) that you don't know what correlation means as well as that your posts are riddled with fallacies. Now, if you chose to accept and fix these issues then we could talk about the original argument. You should be humble and learn from those who try to teach you. I'm not even asking you to pay tuition fees. Except for the part where only one of us is sticking to data and actually seems to know what correlation means... Except for the part where only one of us has actually been staying on topic... Except for the part where only one of us is using theorycrafted arguments that goes against the evidence available... You literally have no idea what you're saying and for the second time in a row you have admitted that you're not really trying to stay on topic with the thread. Please, just stop. The basis of your argument is that I need to first accept all your terms as true before you're willing to argue--and my rebuttals of your terms being contradictory to the data present are being ignored. Please, stop trolling. Unless you're willing to stay on topic, please stop trolling.
Dude can you please stop posting essays all the time or at least offer a tl;dr at the bottom. Best way to make a point on a forum is to create a quick, concise and well-articulated post. Just sayin.
|
Can you guys take it to PM's or something, honestly?
You're both just posting things that have been said a dozen times over, and frankly it just looks stupid when you through 10 paragraph essay posts back and forth at each other.
|
hi i didnt really follow the bw scene
just wondering who the top players to transition over are in order of kespa rank at the time?
|
lorkac, you'll see the truth when the best brood war players switch over and crush our current best players, give or take three to six months. My guess would be that out of the current 30 best BW players, about 10-12 could be part of the best 15 SC2 players. Somewhat random numbers, but just to put it into perspective.
Brood War is essentially a generic RTS that rewards mental quickness, fast hands, strategic preparation, a good practice environment and a good work ethic. It's also by far the most competitive RTS ever, so it's logical to assume the players on top are really talented. They demonstrated they were more talented than our current generation of SC2 players, at least, when both of them competed in Brood War, so there is hardly any reason to doubt they could do the same again were they to switch over.
Isolated events like Hyun and ForGG disappointing after a few months of playing competitively mean nothing, check their results in another three months and even if their play is lackluster still, it might just be that they were washed up or burned out at the end of their brood war careers. (maybe that's why they switched to sc2 to begin with!)
|
On February 21 2012 03:25 BritWrangler wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 21 2012 02:49 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 01:48 Squeegy wrote:
If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top? Intrigue think BW experience is important because BW reached a higher level than any other game. Well, granted, he also thinks that SC2 is more similar to BW and that therefore BW experience will carry over better.
That is what you said. Perhaps you didn't mean it. In either case, you can repeat it ad infinitum but that does not make it true.
Oh, so now you agree there is correlation. Why have I had to repeat this point over and over again. I was expecting something more climatic though like "forgive me, I was wrong, there is indeed correlation".
The Flash issue, you fail to, I don't know, the millionth time to get the point. Yes, people have said Flash can beat anyone in SC2 rather quickly. No, people have not said competition in BW was a farce prior Flash. These two things do not mean the same thing. And nobody has claimed the latter.
No, what you did was switch the discussion to causality when we had been talking about the existence of correlation. Nor did I try to show you anything about your analogies. I tried to show you that there is correlation between gunshot wounds and deaths despite it not being perfect correlation. Just like there is correlation between BW results and SC2 results, despite it not being perfect correlation. Clearly you have trouble following what I am saying. Also I guarantee you I know what a strawman is.
Any game is fine. But the fact that you had to ask that question shows that you don't understand what I am talking about. I am talking about well you did in a previous game mattering. Something that you said was not the case. But also about what you said: and this may surprise you: Flash loses games against worse players too. Being better in BW does not guarantee you automatic wins in BW either! Can you believe that? It is very surprising, isn't it?
No, it means that it is pointless to argue the point itself with you when you don't know how to argue. So I have been trying to point out (for example) that you don't know what correlation means as well as that your posts are riddled with fallacies. Now, if you chose to accept and fix these issues then we could talk about the original argument. You should be humble and learn from those who try to teach you. I'm not even asking you to pay tuition fees. Okay... let's try this again. Because you don't seem to be listening to yourself. Show nested quote +If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top? Intrigue think BW experience is important because BW reached a higher level than any other game. Well, granted, he also thinks that SC2 is more similar to BW and that therefore BW experience will carry over better. Evidence shows that the "top BW players" who switched over are not automatically on top of SC2. They are spread around from Code B to through Code S much like non-BW players are spread around from Code B through Code S. But don't trust me on that--trust the results. I don't need to make blanket statements like "If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top?" because, well, they aren't. Nestea is doing better than Ganzi, Leenock is doing better than ForGG, MMA is beating MVP, etc... The results so far reveal that you're wrong. You saying that you're not does not change the results. Show nested quote +Oh, so now you agree there is correlation. Why have I had to repeat this point over and over again. I was expecting something more climatic though like "forgive me, I was wrong, there is indeed correlation". Yes... the corrolelation of "people who decided to go pro at videogames played some kind of videogame before hand..." Hmm... do you really want to go down this road? You start by saying that the correlation of BW experience and SC2 success is present--I say it doesn't. I then say that the only correlation is that professional video game players more often than not played video games before they turned pro... Which, again, doesn't prove anything nor does it reveal anything. When we look at the data, it is shown that how well you do in BW does not translate to how well you do in SC2. Which again, shows that there is no correlation between BW success and SC2 success. So instead of sticking to the argument you are now going with the "they played video games before turning pro in SC2" argument? Really? I mean really? Show nested quote +The Flash issue, you fail to, I don't know, the millionth time to get the point. Yes, people have said Flash can beat anyone in SC2 rather quickly. No, people have not said competition in BW was a farce prior Flash. These two things do not mean the same thing. And nobody has claimed the latter. So you do agree that it was already part of the discussion--so it was not brought up randomly as a strawman by SC2 supporters. You also agree that people have brought up the "Flash beats player X at game Y so game Y is a farce argument." with Y normally being SC2. But if someone suggests that the argument is faulty because that would mean BW is a farce if you put BW in Y--then you call that a strawman? And at the same time--you fail to see that there is nothing different in changing the Y of that argument between SC2 and BW except for the part that it makes people who believe Flash automatically will rule SC2 sound silly? What exactly are you trying to get at? Please elaborate. Show nested quote +No, what you did was switch the discussion to causality when we had been talking about the existence of correlation. Nor did I try to show you anything about your analogies. I tried to show you that there is correlation between gunshot wounds and deaths despite it not being perfect correlation. Just like there is correlation between BW results and SC2 results, despite it not being perfect correlation. Clearly you have trouble following what I am saying. Also I guarantee you I know what a strawman is. Actually, what you showed me was that you didn't know anything about correlations. If you open the line of thought with "gunshot wounds leads to death" and then realize "Oh, not all the time" then the conclusion is not "gunshot wounds kind of correlates to death" but instead it should be "gunshot wounds *can* lead to something that causes death--I wonder what that "thing" is that can correlate with death" Instead you'd rather not use logic and use the "oh well close enough I guess" mentality when it comes to analysis. If the two things you are attempting to correlate are inconsistent--then they're not really correlating... by definition. What it reveals however is that you have a willingness both academically and personally to gloss over data so long as it fits what your argument is saying instead of actually attempting to reach a truth hinged in reality. Just to make sure it is clear to you--if the data is inconsistent to your hypothesis, then you should be willing to change your hypothesis. Show nested quote +Any game is fine. But the fact that you had to ask that question shows that you don't understand what I am talking about. I am talking about well you did in a previous game mattering. Something that you said was not the case. The data simply shows that people played games before they switched to SC2. How "well you did in a previous game" has not really mattered all that much. This is why Polt and Naniwa have been posting better results than Grubby. This is also the reason why Ganzi is never really a top contender--but DRG is. How "well you did in a previous game" is mattering much less than "so long as you played a video game at some point before you switched" does. According to the results made by the players themselves. Simply saying something does not make it true--you need to back up what you say with data. Show nested quote +But also about what you said: and this may surprise you: Flash loses games against worse players too. Being better in BW does not guarantee you automatic wins in BW either! Can you believe that? It is very surprising, isn't it?
This is actually hilarious to read. The supporters of SC2 have always held their ground that just because you're good at one game, it doesn't mean you'll be good at another. The reason SC2 players believe this, is because we believe that everyone has a chance to become the best no matter their background. That is why a former iCCup player is able to take games off of former A-Teamers and B-Teamers. That is why Hyun can't make it to code A. That is why SC2 supporters are arguing against the article. Because we believe that simply because someone is ranked 1 somewhere, that that person doesn't automatically win all his games. You know, much like Flash losing games in BW. Just because he's a high ranked BW player doesn't automatically mean he'll win a game because his ranking is not *why* he wins games and is actually irrelevant to his actual gameplay. He wins games because of many other factors none of which is related to his ranking. It's actually really funny that you're actually beginning to have to make the same arguments as SC2 supporters because (gasp) those arguments are the ones supported by data. Show nested quote +No, it means that it is pointless to argue the point itself with you when you don't know how to argue. So I have been trying to point out (for example) that you don't know what correlation means as well as that your posts are riddled with fallacies. Now, if you chose to accept and fix these issues then we could talk about the original argument. You should be humble and learn from those who try to teach you. I'm not even asking you to pay tuition fees. Except for the part where only one of us is sticking to data and actually seems to know what correlation means... Except for the part where only one of us has actually been staying on topic... Except for the part where only one of us is using theorycrafted arguments that goes against the evidence available... You literally have no idea what you're saying and for the second time in a row you have admitted that you're not really trying to stay on topic with the thread. Please, just stop. The basis of your argument is that I need to first accept all your terms as true before you're willing to argue--and my rebuttals of your terms being contradictory to the data present are being ignored. Please, stop trolling. Unless you're willing to stay on topic, please stop trolling. Dude can you please stop posting essays all the time or at least offer a tl;dr at the bottom. Best way to make a point on a forum is to create a quick, concise and well-articulated post. Just sayin.
Really? How dare you have to read a bit to understand someone's logic? Not everything people want to say can be summed up with a statement like "Lol Sc2 players suck" or "Lol ur stupid". Trust me, when you get to college, you'll have to read atleast a little bit. Consider this training. In order to have a developed conversation, you might have to have an attention span longer than 5 seconds.
|
On February 21 2012 03:34 Sphen5117 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 03:25 BritWrangler wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 21 2012 02:49 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 01:48 Squeegy wrote:
If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top? Intrigue think BW experience is important because BW reached a higher level than any other game. Well, granted, he also thinks that SC2 is more similar to BW and that therefore BW experience will carry over better.
That is what you said. Perhaps you didn't mean it. In either case, you can repeat it ad infinitum but that does not make it true.
Oh, so now you agree there is correlation. Why have I had to repeat this point over and over again. I was expecting something more climatic though like "forgive me, I was wrong, there is indeed correlation".
The Flash issue, you fail to, I don't know, the millionth time to get the point. Yes, people have said Flash can beat anyone in SC2 rather quickly. No, people have not said competition in BW was a farce prior Flash. These two things do not mean the same thing. And nobody has claimed the latter.
No, what you did was switch the discussion to causality when we had been talking about the existence of correlation. Nor did I try to show you anything about your analogies. I tried to show you that there is correlation between gunshot wounds and deaths despite it not being perfect correlation. Just like there is correlation between BW results and SC2 results, despite it not being perfect correlation. Clearly you have trouble following what I am saying. Also I guarantee you I know what a strawman is.
Any game is fine. But the fact that you had to ask that question shows that you don't understand what I am talking about. I am talking about well you did in a previous game mattering. Something that you said was not the case. But also about what you said: and this may surprise you: Flash loses games against worse players too. Being better in BW does not guarantee you automatic wins in BW either! Can you believe that? It is very surprising, isn't it?
No, it means that it is pointless to argue the point itself with you when you don't know how to argue. So I have been trying to point out (for example) that you don't know what correlation means as well as that your posts are riddled with fallacies. Now, if you chose to accept and fix these issues then we could talk about the original argument. You should be humble and learn from those who try to teach you. I'm not even asking you to pay tuition fees. Okay... let's try this again. Because you don't seem to be listening to yourself. Show nested quote +If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top? Intrigue think BW experience is important because BW reached a higher level than any other game. Well, granted, he also thinks that SC2 is more similar to BW and that therefore BW experience will carry over better. Evidence shows that the "top BW players" who switched over are not automatically on top of SC2. They are spread around from Code B to through Code S much like non-BW players are spread around from Code B through Code S. But don't trust me on that--trust the results. I don't need to make blanket statements like "If BW experience is not important why is it that BW players are at the top?" because, well, they aren't. Nestea is doing better than Ganzi, Leenock is doing better than ForGG, MMA is beating MVP, etc... The results so far reveal that you're wrong. You saying that you're not does not change the results. Show nested quote +Oh, so now you agree there is correlation. Why have I had to repeat this point over and over again. I was expecting something more climatic though like "forgive me, I was wrong, there is indeed correlation". Yes... the corrolelation of "people who decided to go pro at videogames played some kind of videogame before hand..." Hmm... do you really want to go down this road? You start by saying that the correlation of BW experience and SC2 success is present--I say it doesn't. I then say that the only correlation is that professional video game players more often than not played video games before they turned pro... Which, again, doesn't prove anything nor does it reveal anything. When we look at the data, it is shown that how well you do in BW does not translate to how well you do in SC2. Which again, shows that there is no correlation between BW success and SC2 success. So instead of sticking to the argument you are now going with the "they played video games before turning pro in SC2" argument? Really? I mean really? Show nested quote +The Flash issue, you fail to, I don't know, the millionth time to get the point. Yes, people have said Flash can beat anyone in SC2 rather quickly. No, people have not said competition in BW was a farce prior Flash. These two things do not mean the same thing. And nobody has claimed the latter. So you do agree that it was already part of the discussion--so it was not brought up randomly as a strawman by SC2 supporters. You also agree that people have brought up the "Flash beats player X at game Y so game Y is a farce argument." with Y normally being SC2. But if someone suggests that the argument is faulty because that would mean BW is a farce if you put BW in Y--then you call that a strawman? And at the same time--you fail to see that there is nothing different in changing the Y of that argument between SC2 and BW except for the part that it makes people who believe Flash automatically will rule SC2 sound silly? What exactly are you trying to get at? Please elaborate. Show nested quote +No, what you did was switch the discussion to causality when we had been talking about the existence of correlation. Nor did I try to show you anything about your analogies. I tried to show you that there is correlation between gunshot wounds and deaths despite it not being perfect correlation. Just like there is correlation between BW results and SC2 results, despite it not being perfect correlation. Clearly you have trouble following what I am saying. Also I guarantee you I know what a strawman is. Actually, what you showed me was that you didn't know anything about correlations. If you open the line of thought with "gunshot wounds leads to death" and then realize "Oh, not all the time" then the conclusion is not "gunshot wounds kind of correlates to death" but instead it should be "gunshot wounds *can* lead to something that causes death--I wonder what that "thing" is that can correlate with death" Instead you'd rather not use logic and use the "oh well close enough I guess" mentality when it comes to analysis. If the two things you are attempting to correlate are inconsistent--then they're not really correlating... by definition. What it reveals however is that you have a willingness both academically and personally to gloss over data so long as it fits what your argument is saying instead of actually attempting to reach a truth hinged in reality. Just to make sure it is clear to you--if the data is inconsistent to your hypothesis, then you should be willing to change your hypothesis. Show nested quote +Any game is fine. But the fact that you had to ask that question shows that you don't understand what I am talking about. I am talking about well you did in a previous game mattering. Something that you said was not the case. The data simply shows that people played games before they switched to SC2. How "well you did in a previous game" has not really mattered all that much. This is why Polt and Naniwa have been posting better results than Grubby. This is also the reason why Ganzi is never really a top contender--but DRG is. How "well you did in a previous game" is mattering much less than "so long as you played a video game at some point before you switched" does. According to the results made by the players themselves. Simply saying something does not make it true--you need to back up what you say with data. Show nested quote +But also about what you said: and this may surprise you: Flash loses games against worse players too. Being better in BW does not guarantee you automatic wins in BW either! Can you believe that? It is very surprising, isn't it?
This is actually hilarious to read. The supporters of SC2 have always held their ground that just because you're good at one game, it doesn't mean you'll be good at another. The reason SC2 players believe this, is because we believe that everyone has a chance to become the best no matter their background. That is why a former iCCup player is able to take games off of former A-Teamers and B-Teamers. That is why Hyun can't make it to code A. That is why SC2 supporters are arguing against the article. Because we believe that simply because someone is ranked 1 somewhere, that that person doesn't automatically win all his games. You know, much like Flash losing games in BW. Just because he's a high ranked BW player doesn't automatically mean he'll win a game because his ranking is not *why* he wins games and is actually irrelevant to his actual gameplay. He wins games because of many other factors none of which is related to his ranking. It's actually really funny that you're actually beginning to have to make the same arguments as SC2 supporters because (gasp) those arguments are the ones supported by data. Show nested quote +No, it means that it is pointless to argue the point itself with you when you don't know how to argue. So I have been trying to point out (for example) that you don't know what correlation means as well as that your posts are riddled with fallacies. Now, if you chose to accept and fix these issues then we could talk about the original argument. You should be humble and learn from those who try to teach you. I'm not even asking you to pay tuition fees. Except for the part where only one of us is sticking to data and actually seems to know what correlation means... Except for the part where only one of us has actually been staying on topic... Except for the part where only one of us is using theorycrafted arguments that goes against the evidence available... You literally have no idea what you're saying and for the second time in a row you have admitted that you're not really trying to stay on topic with the thread. Please, just stop. The basis of your argument is that I need to first accept all your terms as true before you're willing to argue--and my rebuttals of your terms being contradictory to the data present are being ignored. Please, stop trolling. Unless you're willing to stay on topic, please stop trolling. Dude can you please stop posting essays all the time or at least offer a tl;dr at the bottom. Best way to make a point on a forum is to create a quick, concise and well-articulated post. Just sayin. Really? How dare you have to read a bit to understand someone's logic? Not everything people want to say can be summed up with a statement like "Lol Sc2 players suck" or "Lol ur stupid". Trust me, when you get to college, you'll have to read atleast a little bit. Consider this training. In order to have a developed conversation, you might have to have an attention span longer than 5 seconds.
No, he is right. The guy posts massively long posts and they are so off that they aren't even wrong. They just don't make any sense anymore. There is no logic to follow. Look at his point of how BW players aren't at the top because BW player lost to a BW player. You really cannot fix stupid.
|
anything new about bw players coming over? or is it just idiots arguing about what or what not would happen still?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 21 2012 03:33 Grumbels wrote:
lorkac, you'll see the truth when the best brood war players switch over and crush our current best players, give or take three to six months. My guess would be that out of the current 30 best BW players, about 10-12 could be part of the best 15 SC2 players. Somewhat random numbers, but just to put it into perspective.
Brood War is essentially a generic RTS that rewards mental quickness, fast hands, strategic preparation, a good practice environment and a good work ethic. It's also by far the most competitive RTS ever, so it's logical to assume the players on top are really talented. They demonstrated they were more talented than our current generation of SC2 players, at least, when both of them competed in Brood War, so there is hardly any reason to doubt they could do the same again were they to switch over.
Isolated events like Hyun and ForGG disappointing after a few months of playing competitively mean nothing, check their results in another three months and even if their play is lackluster still, it might just be that they were washed up or burned out at the end of their brood war careers. (maybe that's why they switched to sc2 to begin with!)
Sorry but those are not isolated results as you want to believe. They so far ARE the only proof. But it's ok, keep theory crafting since it's all you BW kiddies can do when the evidence is against you. Honestly this is almost like a religion debate. BW people go "nah uh, the evidence doesn't mean anything to us we believe what we want to!" And yes we'll see the truth when the best BW players switch over, but the truth will be that their BW experience won't mean anything. Some of them will do well, and a lot most likely won't. But of course you BW kiddies will just go "nah the ones who failed at SC2 were awful at BW, we disown them as BW fans because they disprove our ideas." Honestly this feels like a religious debate, you just won't listen to reason and insert your own ideas in the face of contradictory evidence.
I'm sorry that you seem to not have the attention span to read lorkac's posts, it actually would explain why you keep arguing with him despite him proving you completely wrong in every one of his posts. But please, try and actually be intelligent on TL, after all isn't that the idea of the site? Try and actually read what he's saying, you might come out of it smarter, and less of a troll.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 21 2012 03:40 Diizzy wrote:
just idiots arguing about what or what not would happen still?
Pretty much. There hasnt been any recent news I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
